A theory on the college campus issues.

[Forty Two]

Yes.

LOL - bandwagon argument, and argument from spurious similarity.

Even if lots of people start taking the idea of microaggressions and cultural appropriation and such seriously, that doesn't make them good ideas, or non-batshit ideas. Also, the comparison between certain environmental claims (whatever they may be - you were as usual, nonspecific) may have been in the past, having once been thought by many to be batshit but now not so much, and current claims in academia regarding cultural oppropriation, identity politics and such, is a bad analogy. It's like saying people who once thought illness was caused by germs were considered bathshit, therefore progressive SJWs might be on to something when they bleat about cultural appropriation....you never know...

Only you, pErvin...only you...

[pErvinalia]

Yes.

LOL - bandwagon argument, and argument from spurious similarity.

Bandwagon argument is an argument from popularity. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my position. And I don't know what the latter argument is supposed to mean.

Even if lots of people start taking the idea of microaggressions and cultural appropriation and such seriously, that doesn't make them good ideas, or non-batshit ideas.

I never said they did.

Also, the comparison between certain environmental claims (whatever they may be - you were as usual, nonspecific) may have been in the past, having once been thought by many to be batshit but now not so much, and current claims in academia regarding cultural oppropriation, identity politics and such, is a bad analogy. It's like saying people who once thought illness was caused by germs were considered bathshit, therefore progressive SJWs might be on to something when they bleat about cultural appropriation....you never know...

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

Only you, pErvin...only you...

I hope one day you will look back on the utter fool that you made of yourself on this forum and entertain a moment of reflection. You seem totally oblivious to the fact that virtually no has any respect for your fallacious methods of argumentation.

[Hermit]

check out this analysis of this issue - http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/09/ ... y-did-not/

Written by a conservative firebrand under the auspices of a right wing organisation founded two years ago by, among others, your darling, Jonathan Haidt. What could possibly go askew?

For starters, using self-description as the criterion for classification. Coito, when you describe yourself as a moderate, it is entirely unsurprising that so few people would class themselves as centrist/moderate, let alone right of centre.

Then is the question as to why Abrams took the liberty of lumping liberals in together with the far left. Makes the far left look more substantial by association, I suppose, and Abrams will undoubtedly claim he was only being fair because he also lumped the conservatives in with the far right. Yeah. Sure. Looks legit to me. Except of course for the fact that this is an effective trick to move the peak of the bell curve further to the left. Sneaky opportunist.

Then there's the US-centric conception of liberal. Anywhere else most self-described liberals might just scrape in as centrists or moderately conservative.

Altogether I think Krugman hit the nail on the head: "Overall, the evidence looks a lot more consistent with a story that has academics rejecting a conservative party that has moved sharply right than it does with a story in which academics have moved left."

[Forty Two]

Yes.

LOL - bandwagon argument, and argument from spurious similarity.

Bandwagon argument is an argument from popularity. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my position. And I don't know what the latter argument is supposed to mean.

Duh, when you say that an idea was once thought batshit, but later becomes viewed as non-batshit, you're arguing popularity. Further, argument from spurious similarity means your analogy is bad. Other than being ideas, the science of various environmental claims vs. the ideas of SJWs such as microaggressions share no similarities, and it does not follow that because an environmental claim was once thought nutty, but is now taken seriously, has nothing to do with microaggressions or cultural appropriation. If your pointing out the bleeding obvious that some ideas are viewed by some people at some times differently than they are viewed by other people at other times, then thanks a million, buddy. I'm sure we all needed your clarification on that. But, it has zero relevance to the discussion.

[pErvinalia]

Yes.

LOL - bandwagon argument, and argument from spurious similarity.

Bandwagon argument is an argument from popularity. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my position. And I don't know what the latter argument is supposed to mean.

Duh, when you say that an idea was once thought batshit, but later becomes viewed as non-batshit, you're arguing popularity.

What the fuck? An argument from popularity argues that something is right because it is popular. I have done no such thing. Learn fucking English, ffs.

Further, argument from spurious similarity means your analogy is bad. Other than being ideas, the science of various environmental claims vs. the ideas of SJWs such as microaggressions share no similarities, and it does not follow that because an environmental claim was once thought nutty, but is now taken seriously, has nothing to do with microaggressions or cultural appropriation.

I noticed you ignored the inconvenient point about Howard Zinn. Up to your usual bullshit debating tactics.

[Forty Two]

I hope one day you will look back on the utter fool that you made of yourself on this forum and entertain a moment of reflection. You seem totally oblivious to the fact that virtually no has any respect for your fallacious methods of argumentation.

[Forty Two]

Yes.

LOL - bandwagon argument, and argument from spurious similarity.

Bandwagon argument is an argument from popularity. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my position. And I don't know what the latter argument is supposed to mean.

Duh, when you say that an idea was once thought batshit, but later becomes viewed as non-batshit, you're arguing popularity.

What the fuck? An argument from popularity argues that something is right because it is popular. I have done no such thing. Learn fucking English, ffs.

Dude, you referred to an argument being thought wrong (batshit) and then later people not thinking it's batshit anymore. That means it gained in popularity. Other than its popularity, what does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

Stop getting so upset at an internet discussion. Calm down. Take whatever pills you've been prescribed and have a nap.

Further, argument from spurious similarity means your analogy is bad. Other than being ideas, the science of various environmental claims vs. the ideas of SJWs such as microaggressions share no similarities, and it does not follow that because an environmental claim was once thought nutty, but is now taken seriously, has nothing to do with microaggressions or cultural appropriation.

I noticed you ignored the inconvenient point about Howard Zinn. Up to your usual bullshit debating tactics.

Oh, stop it. My bullshit debating tactics? You don't even debate. You just namecall and declare victory. Just stop.

Ignored an inconvenient point about Howard Zinn? Raised by whom? You? When you mentioned Howard Zinn, I did respond to it, but you post was idiotic. Where you posted about Zinn, you referred to ideas of environmentalists and Howard Zinn once being though batshit, but now people don't think of them as batshit as much anymore. If that's your point, it's really weak one. Well, maybe strong for you, but weak for anyone else.

[pErvinalia]

LOL - bandwagon argument, and argument from spurious similarity.

Bandwagon argument is an argument from popularity. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my position. And I don't know what the latter argument is supposed to mean.

Duh, when you say that an idea was once thought batshit, but later becomes viewed as non-batshit, you're arguing popularity.

What the fuck? An argument from popularity argues that something is right because it is popular. I have done no such thing. Learn fucking English, ffs.

Dude, you referred to an argument being thought wrong (batshit) and then later people not thinking it's batshit anymore. That means it gained in popularity. Other than its popularity, what does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

Stop getting so upset at an internet discussion. Calm down. Take whatever pills you've been prescribed and have a nap.

I get upset at your dishonesty. People like you are a disgrace. And you've just shown more of your dishonesty here by ignoring the critical point of the argument from popularity - that is, a point of view is considered RIGHT because it is popular. For the third time, I've done no such thing. Learn to fucking read.

Further, argument from spurious similarity means your analogy is bad. Other than being ideas, the science of various environmental claims vs. the ideas of SJWs such as microaggressions share no similarities, and it does not follow that because an environmental claim was once thought nutty, but is now taken seriously, has nothing to do with microaggressions or cultural appropriation.

I noticed you ignored the inconvenient point about Howard Zinn. Up to your usual bullshit debating tactics.

Oh, stop it. My bullshit debating tactics? You don't even debate. You just namecall and declare victory. Just stop.

You know very well why virtually no one debates you any more. It's because you are utterly dishonest. I've long since stop treating your arguments with any respect. All they deserve is put downs and blunt dismissals.

[Forty Two]

I get upset at your dishonesty. People like you are a disgrace. And you've just shown more of your dishonesty here by ignoring the critical point of the argument from popularity - that is, a point of view is considered RIGHT because it is popular. For the third time, I've done no such thing. Learn to fucking read.

No, you invent allegations of dishonesty, I suspect to cover up for your own tactics.

Look grow up and stop being so hysterical. Your point and my point have already been made here.

Your practice of getting all upset at issues like -- very unimportant issues -- is, I hope, purposeful on your part, and not real. Who gets upset like this and start calling people a disgrace?

I don't care if you agree with or object to the logical fallacies you've used. The fact remains that the substantive idea you put forth - that in the past certain ideas were thought batshit, and later they might not be, is an absolutely irrelevant and pointless observation. It has no relation to the issue under discussion. It is weak.

Now you want to divert the conversation into a lengthy debate over an issue of which logical fallacy technically applies to your pointless statement.

Further, argument from spurious similarity means your analogy is bad. Other than being ideas, the science of various environmental claims vs. the ideas of SJWs such as microaggressions share no similarities, and it does not follow that because an environmental claim was once thought nutty, but is now taken seriously, has nothing to do with microaggressions or cultural appropriation.

I noticed you ignored the inconvenient point about Howard Zinn. Up to your usual bullshit debating tactics.

Oh, stop it. My bullshit debating tactics? You don't even debate. You just namecall and declare victory. Just stop.

You know very well why virtually no one debates you any more. It's because you are utterly dishonest. I've long since stop treating your arguments with any respect. All they deserve is put downs and blunt dismissals.

It's obvious what you're doing. Your usual tactic.

[Brian Peacock]

Simmer down you two. Try and refocus your arguments to the issues, not each other please.

[pErvinalia]

It's impossible to talk about the issues because of his dishonesty.

[Forty Two]

It's impossible to talk about the issues because of his dishonesty.

[Hermit]

It's impossible to talk about the issues because of his dishonesty.

And yet you persist trying to do just that. What does it say about you? Hint: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"

[Forty Two]

The only issue I take with your last post, Hermit, is the suggestion that he actually persists in talking about the issues. Would you say he does that? Or, does he moreso find ways to poke and antagonize?

[pErvinalia]

It's impossible to talk about the issues because of his dishonesty.

And yet you persist trying to do just that. What does it say about you? Hint: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"

I'm only interested in pointing out his lies and the failings in his "arguments".